Civil Rights Cases filed in the Ninth Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 367
Pollock v. San Diego County Sheriff's Department et al
as 3:2024cv00795
Plaintiff: Luke Pollock
Defendant: San Diego County Sheriff's Department, Quality Towing and Recovery, The Hertz Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bv Bivens Non-Prisoner
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2024cv01562
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2023cv01747
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12111 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv09371
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
M. G. E., Jr. v. Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC et al
as 2:2023cv09373
Plaintiff: M. G. E., Jr.
Defendant: Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Chief MICHEL MOORE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2023cv01660
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Nathanial Hasher v. City of Rochester, et al
as 23-35576
Plaintiff / Appellant: NATHANIAL JAMES HASHER
Defendant / Appellee: CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal entity, E. FRITZ, Officer, Badge No. 187, personally, individually, and in his capacity as a Rochester Police Officer, FAUDSKAR, Officer, personally, individually, and in his capacity as a Rochester Police and others
Helen Doe, et al v. Thomas Horne, et al
as 23-16030
Plaintiff / Appellee: HELEN DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, JAMES DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, KATE ROE, parent and next friend of Megan Roe and others
Defendant / Appellant: THOMAS C. HORNE, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Defendant: LAURA TOENJES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Kyrene School District, KYRENE SCHOOL DISTRICT, GREGORY SCHOOL and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant: WARREN PETERSEN, Senator, President of the Arizona State Senate and BEN TOMA, Representative, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Amicus Curiae: MARY I. O'CONNOR, CAROL BROWN, PATRICIA SPRATLEN ETEM, VALERIE McCLAIN, AND JAN PALCHIKOFF, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, AND SAMARITAN'S PURSE, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ON WOMENS SPORT and others
Helen Doe, et al v. Thomas Horne, et al
as 23-16026
Plaintiff / Appellee: HELEN DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, JAMES DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, KATE ROE, parent and next friend of Megan Roe and others
Defendant: THOMAS C. HORNE, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, LAURA TOENJES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Kyrene School District, KYRENE SCHOOL DISTRICT and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant: WARREN PETERSEN, Senator, President of the Arizona State Senate and BEN TOMA, Representative, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Amicus Curiae: MARY I. O'CONNOR, CAROL BROWN, PATRICIA SPRATLEN ETEM, VALERIE McCLAIN, AND JAN PALCHIKOFF, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, AND SAMARITAN'S PURSE, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ON WOMENS SPORT and others
Hasher v. City of Rochester et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv00196
Plaintiff: Nathanial James Hasher
Defendant: City of Rochester, Officer E Fritz, Officer Faudskar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?